alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY of the State of Texas, Appellant, v. George Earl SMITH, Appellee.

No. 6637.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Nov. 19, 1956.

George E. Gilkerson and William J. Gillespie, Lubbock, for appellant.

Benkamine Kucera, Lubbock, for ap-pellee.

• NORTHCUTT, Justice.

On June 1, 1955, the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas, appellant here, notified George Earl .Smith, appellee here, that his driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle on any public road, street, or highway had been cancelled for a period *558of- twelve months because of • being convicted on April 12, 1955, in the state of Oklahoma of the second offense of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The appellee appealed to the County Court of Law of Lubbock County, Texas, seeking to stay and suspend the order and ruling of the appellant and upon a hearing by the court judgment was entered setting aside and holding for naught the order of the appellant cancelling the appellee’s driver’s license and from this judgment, appellant perfected this appeal.

Appellant relies upon the judgment entered by the judge in the Municipal Court in the city of Enid, Oklahoma. The judgment stated that the court examined the verified complaint charging the defendant with the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverage and that although George Earl Smith was three, times called in open court, he failed to appear. The complaint did not state what he was driving. The court then forfeited the $20 posted by George Earl Smith because of his failure to appear for trial. It being the contention of appellant that when the-appellee failed to appear in the Municipal Court in Enid, Oklahoma, and his $20 bond was forfeited that was equivalent for a final conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquors.

Outside of the pleadings there is no proof that appellee had the driver’s license that was to be cancelled. There are no pleadings nor proof of the laws of Oklahoma, consequently, we are to presume that they are the same as Texas’. For the first conviction of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquors in this state it would be tried in the County Court or a court of equal jurisdiction and for the conviction for a second offense of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor it should be tried in the District *Court.*We *cannot*consider a judgment as a final judgment of a conviction that was entered by a court that did not have any jurisdiction. A Municipal Court in this state has no jurisdiction to try a case of a second offense and convict a person for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Termination of Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.7 
  
 TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made effective as of February 15,
2004, by and between Raymond E. Wirta (“Executive”) and CB Richard Ellis Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS the parties to this Agreement are the parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated July 20, 2001 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to
terminate the Employment Agreement except as herein described. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

AGREEMENT 
  
 1. The parties hereby agree and acknowledge that, except as expressly set forth in Paragraph 2 hereof, the Employment Agreement is terminated effective as
of February 15, 2004, and shall be of no further force and effect. 
  
 2. The Company and Executive agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, (i) this Agreement is not intended and shall not be deemed to terminate, amend or in any other way modify Section 5(b) of the Employment Agreement,
entitled “Loans,” and (ii) such Section 5(b) shall continue in full force and effect pursuant to the terms thereof. 
  
 3. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of New York, without reference to conflict of laws provisions thereof.

  
 4. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 
  
 [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first above written.

  

			
	 CB RICHARD ELLIS SERVICES, INC.,
 a Delaware corporation

		
	By:	 	 /s/ KENNETH J. KAY


	 Name:
	 	 Kenneth J. Kay


	 Its:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer


	
	 EXECUTIVE

	
	   /s/ RAYMOND E. WIRTA


	 Raymond E. Wirta
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Philip S. Sassower, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Communication Intelligence Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Communication Intelligence Corporation.





Date:           March 29, 2011





By: /s/ Philip S. Sassower


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Communication Intelligence Corporation and will be retained by Communication Intelligence Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by Communication Intelligence Corporation for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Communication Intelligence Corporation specifically incorporates it by reference.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MATTHEW JOHN CASANOVA,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 10

- 00006

- CR

Appeal from the

163rd District Court

of Orange County, Texas

(TC# B090255

- R)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodri guez, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 11310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02988]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Research 
Enhancement Center.
    Date: March 12, 2024.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK Democracy II, Suite 
7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Elena Sanovich, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7351, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-
594-8886, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9deefcf3f2ebf4fef5f8ddf0fcf4f1b3f3f4f5b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7b4a6a9a8b1aea4afa287aaa6aeabe9a9aeafe9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 8, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02988 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 ENZON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in thousands)
 Six MonthsEndedYear Ended December 31,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    Year ended June  30,2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003Determination of earnings:Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income taxes
    
    $
    84,986
    
    
    $
    22,067
    
    
    $
    (302,284
    )
    
    $
    (11,662
    )
    
    $
    7,385
    
    
    $
    45,949Add:Fixed Charges
    
    
    18,131
    
    
    
    22,590
    
    
    
    10,103
    
    
    
    20,287
    
    
    
    20,275
    
    
    
    20,244Earnings, as adjusted
    
    $
    103,117
    
    
    $
    44,657
    
    
    $
    (292,181
    )
    
    $
    8,625
    
    
    $
    27,660
    
    
    $
    66,193Fixed charges:Interest expense (gross)(1)
    
    $
    17,380
    
    
    $
    22,055
    
    
    $
    9,841
    
    
    $
    19,829
    
    
    $
    19,829
    
    
    $
    19,828Portion of rent representative
of the interest factor(2)
    
    
    751
    
    
    
    535
    
    
    
    262
    
    
    
    458
    
    
    
    446
    
    
    
    416Fixed charges
    
    $
    18,131
    
    
    $
    22,590
    
    
    $
    10,103
    
    
    $
    20,287
    
    
    $
    20,275
    
    
    $
    20,244Deficiency of earnings available to
cover fixed charges
    
    
    N/A
    
    
    
    N/A
    
    
    $
    (302,284
    )
    
    $
    (11,662
    )
    
    
    N/A
    
    
    
    N/ARatio of earnings to fixed
charges
    
    
    6:1
    
    
    
    2:1
    
    
    
    N/A
    
    
    
    N/A
    
    
    
    1:1
    
    
    
    3:1
 
 (1)
    
    Interest expense includes amortization of deferred offering costs of $1.6 million,
$1.8 million and $976,000 for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the six months
ended December 31, 2005, respectively, and $1.8 million for each of the three years ended June
30, 2005.(2)
    
    Approximately 33% of annual rent expense is included in the computation. The
Company believes this is a reasonable estimate of the interest factor in its leases, which are
not material. The underlying rent amounts were $2.3 million, $1.6 million, $795,000, $1.4
million, $1.4 million and $1.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, the six
months ended December 31, 2005 and for the years ended June 30, 2005, 2004 and 2003,
respectively.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 154 

To prohibit the use of funds for implementation or enforcement of any 

Federal mandate to purchase health insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. 

HALL, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. 

SIMPSON, Mr. OLSON, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. 

JONES, and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds for implementation or enforcement of any Federal mandate to purchase health insurance. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defund the Individual 

5 Mandate Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 154 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT 

2 OR ENFORCE FEDERAL MANDATE TO PUR3 CHASE HEALTH INSURANCE. 

4 None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 

5 available to any Federal department or agency may be 

6 used to implement or enforce any Federal mandate to pur7 chase health insurance. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Houston Nelson FREE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29346.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1957.

*809Paul W. Anderson, Marshall, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $100.

Police Officers McGuire and Sha-dowen testified that on the night in question they received a radio message from headquarters and went in search of a green Cadillac convertible, that they saw one drive out of a filling station, gave chase and brought it to a halt, and arrested the appellant who was the driver. They testified that from the way the appellant talked, walked and smelled they were of the opinion that he was intoxicated, that they found one partially empty bottle of whiskey in his pocket and another bottle in the glove compartment of the automobile.

The appellant testified that he had taken only one drink before he was arrested and that he was not intoxicated. A number of witnesses testified that they saw the appellant shortly before his arrest and expressed the opinion that he was not intoxicated.

The jury resolved this conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The appellant contends that the trial court certified error in several of his bills of exception. This Court has held in McGee v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 639, 238 S.W.2d 707; Watkins v. State, Tex.Crim.App., 239 S.W.2d 107; Mayberry v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 239 S.W.2d 111; McCune v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 207, 240 S.W.2d 305; Hudson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 245 S.W.2d 259; Sublett v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 258 S.W.2d 336; and Hanna v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 2, 259 S.W.2d 570, that where the entire matter is before us we will not be bound by the trial court’s certificate of error. See also Texas Digest, Criminal Law,

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24
 
     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Thomas A. Russo, Michael R. Milversted and Karen
M. Muller and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents,
with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name,
place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Lehman Brothers Inc., for the fiscal year ended November 30, 1996 and
any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto,
and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
Dated: As of February 28, 1997
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
             SIGNATURES                                        TITLE
-------------------------------------  ------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                    <C>
 
      /s/ RICHARD S. FULD, JR.                      Chief Executive Officer and,
-------------------------------------                 Chairman of the Board of
        Richard S. Fuld, Jr.                                 Directors
                                                   (principal executive officer)

        /s/ CHARLES B. HINTZ                          Chief Financial Officer
-------------------------------------                       and Director
          Charles B. Hintz                            (principal financial and
                                                        accounting officer)
 
        /s/ ROGER S. BERLIND                                  Director
-------------------------------------
          Roger S. Berlind
 
         /s/ PHILIP CALDWELL                                  Director
-------------------------------------
           Philip Caldwell
 
      /s/ HOWARD L. CLARK, JR.                                Director
-------------------------------------
        Howard L. Clark, Jr.
 
         /s/ FREDERICK FRANK                                  Director
-------------------------------------
           Frederick Frank
 
       /s/ BRUCE R. LAKEFIELD                                 Director
-------------------------------------
         Bruce R. Lakefield
 
      /s/ SHERMAN R. LEWIS, JR.                               Director
-------------------------------------
        Sherman R. Lewis, Jr.
 
         /s/ MEL A. SHAFTEL                                   Director
-------------------------------------
           Mel A. Shaftel
</TABLE>
From: Robert Gourlay To: Lindsay Destefano; cc: Jon Wexler; Subject: Comments Date: Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:28:43 PM

Hi Lindsay, My comments to your request follow. General comment: Batteries are chemical devices that change properties with time, temperature, and usage. For most tests in this program, the battery was not the item being tested, it was used as a part of the test equipment to test a charger. There is an erroneous temptation to assign the type of accuracy to the batteries as given test instruments. 1) Small variations in the selected C value will have a relatively small effect on battery performance if the battery is fully charged and a proper test termination voltage is used. The duration of the test may be longer, but the energy delivered will show relatively modest variation. 2) My experience with modern nickel batteries has shown that very few require more than three cycles to stabilize. Admittedly, my experience may have been limited to relatively new batteries. My practice is to compare the results of each discharge cycle and to continue until little change is shown. Some chargers require an unusually long time to charge from a fully discharged state. Some toothbrushes exceeded 48 hours, thereby extending the conditioning time to the frustration of the test lab. 3) There is intense development in Li based batteries. There may be some risk in fixing discharge potentials with new products entering the marketplace. Nonetheless, I believe that most Li batteries have an internal minimum voltage cut-off for safety reasons. I expect this voltage is well below a reasonable minimum test voltage. Developments have resulted in a widely used Li battery that delivers essentially all useful energy at 3.0V. Further discharge to 2.5V would yield little energy. I am unaware of what effect a 2.5V discharge would have on a 3.0V rated battery in terms of subsequent performance. I doubt there is asafety issue. Regards, Bob Robert Gourlay rdg_eng@earthlink.net
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith.



Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the
Companies)



Written Statement by Chief
Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Companies Form 10-Q periodic
report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in that report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies as of that date.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/ Leonard A. Campanaro                         
|Leonard A. Campanaro                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and                     
|Armstrong World Industries, Inc.                 



Dated: July 29, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

*Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*

In connection with the Annual Report of Advanced Cellular Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Dean Antonis, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

| (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                         |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                                                                                             |
| (2)    | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

/s/ Dean Antonis                       Dean AntonisPresident and Principal Executive OfficerDate:  October 14, 2003This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.